- From: Guillaume via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 20:44:38 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> there's not actually any definition of what an `@foo` means in a grammar definition
I can find it in CSS V&U 4 (list item [1](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-4/#component-types)).
`# 123` is not equivalent to `#123`. `@ foo` is not equivalent to `@foo`. Etc. Good point. The syntax would be far less flexible if whitespaces were always meaningless to the parser.
`@foo {}` is equivalent to `@foo{}` but `foo ()` is not equivalent to `foo()`. A keyword and a simple block is consumed for both. From this point of view, it made sense to me to be consistent, especially now that function names are no longer always a simple identifier string to match case-insensitively, but also dashed identifiers thay may contain escaped characters to preserve in the serialization.
`<production> (a)` was a bad example.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by cdoublev
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10558#issuecomment-2698861230 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2025 20:44:39 UTC